Under Texas law, governments have no obligation to allow members of the public to offer comment at meetings. But doing so provides for better governance, and honors the principles of our democratic system.

At City Council meetings, members of the public have generally been allowed up to three minutes to make their point to the elected officials who serve them. That practice was called into question on June 27, the first meeting for the new City Council led by Mayor Dee Margo, when it was announced that speakers would be limited to one minute each. That new rule was suspended for that meeting, allowing speakers three minutes.

The council on Tuesday will discuss amending its rules of order, with most of the changes focused on what the city refers to as the “call to the public.” Among the highlights of the proposed rules to be debated on Tuesday by the City Council:

• The time limit for each speaker will be three minutes.

• The maximum time allotted for public comment will be 60 minutes, up from the current 30 minutes.

• Any group of five or more wishing to speak on the same topic will have to select one representative for the group, who will be given up to three minutes to speak. This is a new requirement.

• People will only be allowed to speak once on a topic. Under old rules, a person could speak more than once if there was time left in the allotted 30 minutes for public comment after everyone had spoken.

• Lobbyists who seek to speak must indicate their status on the sign-up sheet and prior to making comments.

• Translation can only be done by a certified interpreter provided by the city. Some groups in the past have provided their own translators for Spanish speakers.

• Members of the public who don’t wish to speak can register support or opposition to an agenda item on an audience participation form.

The proposal likely to generate the most opposition, and the one that seems most difficult to enforce, is the requirement that groups of five or more must choose a spokesperson.

Over the years, contentious issues have often led to numerous people with common interests addressing the council. This has been most evident recently on the debate over the location for a Downtown arena.

The council should move cautiously in limiting speaking by people who share similar beliefs. The proposal raises First Amendment concerns because it limits someone from speaking solely based on the content of that speech.

Also, supporters of an issue are not monolithic. Different people can arrive at the same stance on an issue for differing reasons. How will the city handle a speaker who agrees with most but not all of the points made by a group?

Overall, the proposed rules appear able to allow for robust comment from the public. Maintaining the three-minute time limit for individual speakers will allow members of the public ample time to express themselves on an issue.

Allowing for robust debate isn’t the most efficient way to govern. But it is the best way.